Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 126. (Read 9723748 times)

Fixed it for you, you are welcome.


Source : messari.io

Puzzling how coinmarketcap considers Theta Token not a token, but a coin.
Also it looks like we have a new coin in the top 20, with a marketcap currently of $986 Million




Source : https://coinmarketcap.com/coins/


Source : https://gemini.com/prices/filecoin

Will Filecoin file a new record, or will it get dumped even more ? I guess we will find out soon enough...

          ** Hot from the press **

Bitcoin just dumped from $11,508 to $11,200
Which means there will be a lot of price volatility among Altcoins today.
*********************************************************

Maybe this is the reason :

BTC and OKB plunge after OKEx suspends withdrawals


Read more here : https://cointelegraph.com/news/btc-and-okb-plunge-after-okex-suspends-withdrawals

You do that.

Meanwhile the market will continue to torture us till we wake up and understand how to adjust our value offering to give it what it wants rather than what we want for ourselves.

Correct, from either a miner or a masternode owner...

Now, let's just agree to disagree. You are not going to brainwash nor hypnotize me into submission.

You've stated your position over and over again and are adding nothing new.

Many of the arguments against your position you skip over or quote out of context.

It seems to me you should get support for your position and make a proposal to the network.

I have always stated that this award re-allocation is next to negligible. You're argument would have to be just as valid for Dash when it had the 50/50 share between miners and masternodes and yet it is under this model it had great success. But 60/40 is now the tipping point?

Anyways, good luck. 

Agreed. I thought I had made this point explicit. The "price" of the next ("marginal") block is ultra important in a mined coin. You only need to tank the value of that one block to deplete the capital of the whole chain while a coin is still in its mining phase. So why make it valueless by generating it numerically in exchange for no new investment instead of subjecting it to as much competitive mining as possible ?


You already explained it to yourself above. Let me remind you: "it seems to me that if a miner spends a certain amount to get a coin, it's not so strange that a buyer on the market would be willing to spend a similar amount".

The amount the "miner has to spend on a coin" is directly proportional to its scarcity (measured in terms of how much financial effort is required to extract it from the blockchain). The mined portion of Dash's blockchain requires a large amount of financial effort to extract the coin. The masternode reward portion of Dash's blockchain requires zero financial effort to extract the coin, ergo: zero scarcity value. That portion of the blockchain WAS supposed to be supported by service value, but instead it's being drained by pure masternode profit. That profit is being paid for out of the capital value in the chain (since no service revenue is being generated) which is why the chain is being chronically decapitalised.

The way to sort this is to replace most of the masternode numerical ROI with capital gain ROI (i.e. :

1. drastically reduce the Dash denominated masternode reward which will..
2. direct a far higher proportion of new investor's capital into the "scarcity" value of the chain which will..
3. allow new investors (in the primary supply) to receive more coins, at a higher scarcity value than they did with the current protocol which will..
4. attract more investors, since they know their investment is returned to them instantly instead of going to fund masternode holiday cruises

Masternodes will benefit from this as well because under the current regime, all that's happening is they're going to get more slices of a thinner cake who's weight is out of control of the Dash protocol. The market decides it.

If we give the market what it wants (more coins per hash) then it will give us what we want (more capital gain). All we need to do then, having reasonably returned investors their capital in mining terms is compete on useability.


I think I did state why the masternode was the "first buyer". I said they shared the same custodial tier as the miner. That is very important because the blockchain protocol is the primary market in the sense that it decides what the cost of a coin is to any human being. From the point that the human possess the coin, the blockchain protocol no longer has any say over its scarcity (how much financial effort is needed to acquire it). So the Dash protocol proposes to apply scarcity as follows:

4 coins out of every 10 at maximum scarcity (you need to deliver hashrate to the blockchain to get them)
6 coin out of every 10 at zero scarcity (they are delivered at no cost, on trust that "some" unspecified value will feed back to the blockchain capital value)

That means that, to be competitive, those 6 coins need to return at least as much capital to the chain as an equivalent amount of hashpower in a 100% mined chain. I think that's impossible because there's no way that any economic entity given unrestricted cost free capital is going to fully invest it back in the chain. So the capital leaves the chain.

Any masternode owner knows this. A bus ticket that was bought with masternode revenue is a capital loss for the chain because it was paid for out of numerical gain by cutting the cake into thinner slices, not capital gain by making us more competitive.


It sounds nice but the less the protocol is able to absorb the value of that hashrate into the chain, the less it matters. The contribution of hashrate to the value of the coin is being mitigated by design and is currently being priced out by the market. Apparently "we don't need all this hashrate" and the market has listened. So you can have all the hashrate you like - it ain't gonna make zip difference to the price because it's only applied to a mere 40% of the supply and the rest of the chain is given away for free.

Miners stay alive at any price because they can simply game the protocol by balancing their masternode holdings with their hashrate capacity and difficulty adjustments. Traders stay alive because they can decide whether they go long or short Dash. The only people that get screwed (ironically) are long term holders and faith keepers who neither trade nor mine.

What I think should happen IMO is:

1. Recognise that Dash is not a stable coin, therefore it can only be "invested in" as a store of value and that is its priority

2. Inherit bitcoin's store of value model fully and return as much of the coin as possible to investors who pay for it (that means ramping the mining reward right back up as high as it can go)

3. Pay a small minority of the mining reward to nodes commensurate with costs + a reasonable margin

This might be true if the miner had a monopoly on the supply. Isn't 90% of XMR already mined? Can't anyone just go to the market instead of the miner? So again it seems to me that if a miner spends a certain amount to get a coin, it's not so strange that a buyer on the market would be willing to spend a similar amount. Or if the miner is not a holder and is only in it to make immediate profit then they still rely on a buyer on the market willing to spend this amount to obtain the coin from them.

And this also highlights another strange thing about value. Why is the $1000 coin worth 1000 times the $1 coin? Is it because he said so, and he said so because she said so, and so on? Is it herd mentality? FOMO? People like to be with other like minded people? The miner would soon quit if they couldn't sell their coin that cost them $1000 for anything close to that amount. And yet, Dash's hashrate continues to rise...


Although it's not a perfect analogy you haven't adequately stated why the masternode owner has to be considered the first buyer. The model you're using is too simplistic and ignores the nuances of value, how people perceive value and why if a miner is willing to spend $X to obtain coin (yes, some are holders) then why that's somehow superior to someone buying from a masternode owner.

Another analogy that is not without merit, is the masternode owner is like the chain itself... providing DASH at set intervals.

To insist a masternode owner is no more than a different kind of miner misses the bigger picture which is far more dynamic.

I am not worried at all.


Source : http://178.254.23.111/~pub/Dash/Dash_Info.html (V16.0 Adoption)

More signs of mining pools updating and signalling readiness for v0.16
I am sure this percentage will fluctuate heavily the next minutes / hours / days / weeks / months.

Don't worry. It's being priced in as we speak.

Here we see the dynamic treshold percentage to lock-in the reward allocation change for miners in action (see BRR trigger)


Source : http://178.254.23.111/~pub/Dash/Dash_Info.html (V16.0 Adoption)


Source : https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/3692

Looks like we just passed the 1st week, according above schedule.

That is the thing i like about pictures, they can either add value to a post if they are from a reliable source, or they can provide a post with no additional value if they have no reliable source (or lacking any source).
If pictures have no value, they pretty much become just decorative pictures. Nice to look at, but nothing more.
 

And at this time, the best coin is already on the 33rd place. We fly like a stone to the bottom.

Because the miner is adding measurable value to the coin they generate while the masternode owner is not.

Lets say you have 2 identical blockchains. Everything else equal - they are complete twins in every respect except for 1 thing:

Chain A: The "price" of mining the next block from the chain is $1000
Chain B: The "price" of mining the next block from the chain is $1

That means the coin from chain A is 1000 times more "scarce" if you define scarcity as the amount of financial effort required to acquire it directly from the chain.

So the capital flow "paid to electricity and chip manufacturers" isn't lost. It comes back to the chain in the form of scarcity which in the above example made coin A 1000 times more expensive to acquire than coin B. Then that capital flow returns to the investor who gets the coins that hold that capital, so we have a balanced model and everyone's "even". Those are the core mechanics of "store of value" = keeping everyone even. Moreover, the investor's capital actually added to the value of the chain - not in a superficial exchange orderbook hoovering sense, but in a fundamental sense by supporting the "opening price" for the next block.



Meanwhile, lets look at this perspective which I disagree with:


If we're going to account for the "cost of acquisition" across the whole chain then we need to regard the masternode holder as the "first buyer" at a price of zero. (Since they occupy the same custodial tier as the miner). We can verify this in accounting terms because if the MN holder sells at a price of zero they will still break even. They still have their 1000 Dash and have incurred no significant costs in acquiring the coin. If they sell at any price above zero, it's pure profit. So the capital that the investor pays for that coin (buying it from the MN holder) isn't returned to them but instead it goes to fund the MN profit margin.



You make the point that "masternodes don't sell for nothing". Fair enough = it's up to masternodes to command a price for their "margin". But that's also analogous to American Airlines "commanding a price" of $10,000 a ticket when it costs them $1000 to run the flight. You can do it if you have a monopoly but of you don't then revenue will bleed away to competitors.

In Dash's case, revenue bleeds away because we don't have a monopoly in the mined coin space. The market can get returned "more coin" for its investment in other mined coins because far less of their invested capital is burned up in supernormal profit making from blockchain caretakers such as node operators.

Dash could fix this problem easily and still have a model where node operators are able to make a profit as I've described above. That would still give us a huge competitive attraction over bitcoin where only miners can make a "business" out of running the chain. But we need to plug the haemorrhaging capital to restore health. The current situation is not doing justice to the existing and potential value of the project.

Ok, so value is a subjective thing. People will spend the amount they feel something is worth.

The miner is the first buyer then, as they are willing to spend the cost of mining to obtain DASH. In other words they want DASH enough to spend the costs on mining.

The masternode owner (which had to be a buyer at one point to obtain 1000 DASH) is not a buyer for the DASH they are rewarded. However, whoever buys the DASH from the masternode owner is the first buyer. This buyer pays the cost they think DASH is worth. If it's lower than the cost of mining then either miners will starve or quit... yet hashrate continues to go up.

I guess a question is, if the miner thinks the cost of mining is worth it to get DASH, why wouldn't another person who wants to buy DASH on the market not come to a similar cost/value for DASH? The entire market works this way as price is always based on last price bought/sold at. So what's the value of anything? To an individual it's often what the value is to the majority.

You say the cost of mining goes to the DASH network... does it? It seems to me it goes to the electricity companies and chip manufacturers. The masternode owner perhaps then can be compared to an electricity company/chip manufacturer.

If not, then why not? And if so then how is a miner more important than someone buying from a masternode owner?

Because the fiat raised by a mined coin sold goes straight back into the capital value of the chain (by raising the opening price of the coins from the next block).

The capital raised from a masternode coin sold does not. It goes straight into the pocket of a masternode holder.

A masternode coin held does nothing to support the capital value of the chain either (because it was numerically generated rather than competitively mined).

A mined coin held does (because the miner had to invest money in the scarcity value of the next block to get it. They effectively "bought" the coin from the chain).


Because it is and always has been a promising coin - potentially unique. We made a bad decision in depleting the mining reward even further than it already was since it was already far too bloated. That decision wasn't properly thought through IMO. But it can be reversed (it'll have to be or we're just going to see more chronic decline in ranking, notwithstanding the odd pump).

Dash is not competitive on "functionality" bells and whistles alone - there's bucketloads of that in the non-mined world. Nor is it competitive just being a bitcoin clone. There's only ever been 1 aspect in which it's competitive (and I've never argued anything else). That is as a direct competitor to bitcoin's store of value property (which is scarcity, nothing else) while being infinitely more useable as a trade currency. That means the haemorrhaging of capital value out of the chain through bloated masternode margins has to have a plug put in it so that capital value is retained in the chain and a far higher element of MN ROI can come from capital gain rather than numerical gain.

That will (for example) stop the (up to) 6500 Dash raining down on the market every week without any of the fiat they raise doing zip to capitalise the chain. Masternode ROI will then come back and there may or may not be a small "profit" element available from running a node - which again, isn't available in bitcoin. But that will depend on how efficient masternodes are at keeping costs down and delivering high service rather than just being delivered it on a plate by the protocol at the expense of cratering the value and ranking of the entire asset.

It will also give "outsiders" looking in something they can invest in with a monetary flow model that they can see works, is sustainable and viable (unlike the present one).

Why doesn't it matter? Because you say so? The price miners sell for sets the opening price but the price masternode owners sell for does not? Because? Sure, miners have higher costs which gives incentive to at least cover cost and I concede that point. But it does not magically follow that DASH produced by masternodes are valued at $0.

Every time I read your thesis I can't help but think your main points suffer from circular reasoning. This is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Coins leaving the chain? What? Miners only provide a function for the network? Masternodes do not? Dash is not Dash without masternodes.


The market still puts DASH comfortably in the top 50 even when double counting BTC (by including WBTC) and 5 or so stable coins (which can be printed infinitely).

Right now an issue might be DASH's inflation, one of the highest among top coins. But this is temporary.

So why are you invested in DASH if as you say, it's not worth investing in?

It doesn't matter whether they give it away or not. The point is that whatever liquidity does change hands between a masternode coin seller and buyer stays completely outside of the network. In a fully mined coin it doesn't. All coins leaving the chain are exchanged for hashrate which goes directly into raising the opening price of coins from the next block.


Really ? Here's how the "market" is weighing its options at the moment. I see no reason for it to suddenly change its priorities.

A network that gives its coins away rather than using them to double down on scarcity, is a network not worth investing in.

Dash 4 figures? you are joking right? not in a million years! it will be a miracle if will ever hit 200 again and that will happen only if BTC is 14-15k maybe then Dash will hit around 200. only if the BTC will be 1 million dollars we will see Dash at 4 figures again. be real man, don't bs people!

Ok, I get it that a masternode owner doesn't have nearly the same cost to get DASH as a miner but all your graphics and explanations invariably assume that DASH masternode owners are giving away their DASH for $0. You don't actually believe that do you? And sure this might be an extra downward pressure during a bear market but is it really as much as you state?

Anyways, I think there is a massive amount of capital that is about to enter the crypto market. DASH and your favorite coins XMR and ZEC will all be 4 figures. Actually pretty much anything in the top 50-100 is likely to do very well (except stable coins which can't do anything but equal about a $1)
 

Why we're having a problem:


****************************************
 • it's ok for mined coins to "hit the market" but..
 • not ok for masternode coins to "hit the market"
****************************************

The "opening price" of the coins from the next block are defined by their scarcity. i.e. the cost of the effort required to mine it. (That is the "real" opening price in economic terms that the market pays. Not the exchange price where they change hands transactionally later on).

Every mined coin that hits the market is therefore balanced by an equivalent amount of fiat which is invested in supporting that opening price (minus a minority profit element which is subject to realtime market forces).

On the other hand (OTOH ) a masternode coin is generated with a zero opening price by comparison. There is no such reciprocal investment in the network when it hits the market. The capital value of the chain is therefore depleted chronically in comparison to 100% mined equivalents. Looked at another way (from a purely accounting perspective) you can't support capital growth by continuously drawing down revenue where it's not replenished. Sales of mining rewards do not do this. They are a balanced capital exchange. Masternode rewards do - they are a pure drawdown.

This is why the chain is continuously losing capital value compared to others.

Oh look, everyone ran to buy masternodes. dash cannot be stopped, it can reach $ 73, and then a rollback of $ 38 is possible, but we have everything under control (we will pay ourselves a reward soon) And yes, everyone in the top 10 is losers. P.S your qwizzie 

XMR is currently approaching $ 140. I would say the morning has come for the XMR. Will the best Dash coin have masternode payouts? 1xmr = 2 best coins

M = Miners
M = Masternodes
M = Market